R/CR.MA/18593/2025 CAV ORDER DATED: 19/01/2026 Reserved On : 21/11/2025 Pronounced On : 19/01/2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR CANCELLATION OF BAIL) NO. 18593 of 2025 ========================================================== DIRECTORATE OF REVENUE INTELLIGENCE Versus MAHMED RIZVANBHAI AIYUBBHAI LIMBADA & ANR. ========================================================== Appearance: MR CB GUPTA(1685) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MR ISA HAKIM(10874) for the Respondent(s) No. 1 MR.TIRTHRAJ PANDYA, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 2 ========================================================== CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE UTKARSH THAKORBHAI DESAI Date : 19/01/2026 CAV ORDER 1. The applicant-Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, which is the original complainant, has preferred the present application praying for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the respondent no.1 who is the original accused no.2 in the said complaint, pursuant to the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge of Surat in Criminal Misc. Application No.4269 of 2025 on 12.06.2025. Page 1 of 9 R/CR.MA/18593/2025 CAV ORDER DATED: 19/01/2026 2. The complaint came to be instituted by the Senior Intelligence O,icer-Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Surat, against respondent no.1 and other four accused under Sections 174 and 175 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, read with Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962. The said complaint was numbered as DRI. F. No.DRI/AZU/SRU/B/INV-11/2023. 3. As per the prosecution case, speci7c information was received by the complainant that, four persons traveling by Air India Express :ight via Sharjah were attempting to smuggle gold in India with the help of the o,icials working in the arrival area of Immigration Department at Surat Airport. Pursuant to the said information, the said four individuals were intercepted and during the examination of their luggage, 7ve white coloured pouches containing gold in paste form weighing 10812.060 gms was recovered from the luggage of Mohamed Sakib Mustak Ahmad Atashbajiwal, six white coloured pouches containing gold in paste form weighing 13094.090 gms and nine white coloured pouches p. 2 R/CR.MA/18593/2025 CAV ORDER DATED: 19/01/2026 containing gold in paste form weighing 19631.130 gms was recovered from the luggage from Uvesh Imtiyaz Shaikh. 4. During the course of panchnama, the CISF team at the Airport had also recovered 4670 gms (approx) of gold in paste form, which was found abandoned in the men’s washroom at the immigration area of Surat Airport. 5. During the course of investigation, it was revealed that the respondent no.4 accused and other four co- accused who were named in the complaint, had played an active role in smuggling the gold in paste form. 6. The respondent no.1-accused had 7led anticipatory bail application before the learned Additional Sessions Judge of Surat, vide Criminal Misc. Application No.4269 of 2025. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, after hearing the learned advocates for either sides, had allowed the said application subject to conditions. Page 3 of 9 R/CR.MA/18593/2025 CAV ORDER DATED: 19/01/2026 7. The applicant being aggrieved by the said order of anticipatory bail granted in favour of the respondent no.1- accused, has preferred the present application under Section 483(3) of the BNSS, 2023, for cancellation of the said anticipatory bail. 8. Heard learned advocate Mr.C.B.Gupta on behalf of the applicant who has forcefully argued that, though the complainant had submitted written objections during the hearing of Criminal Misc. Application No.4269 of 2025, the learned Additional Sessions Judge had not considered the said objections. Mr.Gupta has drawn the attention of the Court to para no.7 of the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge of Surat in Criminal Misc. Application No.4269 of 2025, and has submitted that, the observations of the learned Additional Sessions Judge do not re:ect that the learned Judge had considered the objections which were 7led by the complainant. According to Mr.Gupta, presuming that the learned Additional Sessions Judge was of the opinion that, the objections 7led by the complainant did not carry any p. 4 R/CR.MA/18593/2025 CAV ORDER DATED: 19/01/2026 weight or could not be accepted, he should have made such observations in his order. Mr.Gupta has drawn the attention of the Court to the fact that, the Joint Secretary (COFEPOSA) at the Central Economic Intelligence Bureau, (COFEPOSA Wing, New Delhi), had passed detention orders under the COFEPOSA, 1974, against the respondent no.1 accused and others. However, the learned Additional Sessions Judge had overlooked the said fact also. 9. Mr.Gupta has submitted that, the respondent no.1- accused was one of the main accused and in spite of there being enough culpable material re:ecting his involvement in the crime, the learned Additional Sessions Judge had enlarged him on anticipatory bail. 10. In view of such facts, learned advocate Mr.Gupta has submitted that, this Court should either allow this application and cancel the bail granted to the respondent no.1-accused or allow this application and quash the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in p. 5 R/CR.MA/18593/2025 CAV ORDER DATED: 19/01/2026 Criminal Misc. Application No.4269 of 2025, and direct the learned Additional Sessions Judge to hear the bail application afresh, considering the objections which were 7led by the complainant. 11. Heard learned advocate Mr.Deven Parikh appearing with Mr.Isa Hakim with Mr.Ibrahim Hakim learned advocates for respondent no.1, who has submitted that, the complainant had not challenged any other bail orders except the order of the respondent no.1-accused. There are total 11 accused persons arraigned in the crime, who have been either granted regular bail or anticipatory bail. Mr.Parikh has further submitted that, the role of the respondent no.1-accused pertains to 7nancing the smuggled gold from Dubai through accused no.1-Salman Ra7qbhai Penwala, and it was Salman Penwala who had managed all a,airs with the respondent no.1-accused. He was also in touch of the key members of syndicate and had supervised the activity of every member and, had developed liaisoning with Shri Parag Dave – PSI. Mr.Parikh has submitted that, after considering the p. 6 R/CR.MA/18593/2025 CAV ORDER DATED: 19/01/2026 respondent no.1-accused’s such role, the learned Additional Sessions judge was pleased to allow his anticipatory bail application. Mr.Parikh has further submitted that, the issue of cancellation of bail rests on a narrow compass and the legal and factual aspects so as to consider the plea of cancellation of bail which is already granted, are much less, than the aspects upon which the bail is granted. Accordingly, learned advocate Mr.Parikh has submitted that this application be dismissed. 12. Learned APP Mr.Tirthraj Pandya appearing for respondent no.2-State has submitted that, the Court should remand the matter and let the learned Additional Sessions Judge decide the bail application afresh, after considering the objections which were 7led by the complainant. 13. Considering the submissions of the learned advocates of either sides and the investigation papers which have been annexed with the application, and more particularly on perusing the order passed by the learned p. 7 R/CR.MA/18593/2025 CAV ORDER DATED: 19/01/2026 Additional Sessions Judge in Criminal Misc. Application No.4269 of 2025, it does appear that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has not mentioned anything about the objections which were 7led by the complainant, at the time of hearing of the bail application. Considering the gravity of the o,ense and the allegations leveled against the respondent no.1-accused, it deems 7t to this Court to exercise discretion in favour of the applicant. 14. Consequentially, the present application is hereby allowed and the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in Criminal Misc. Application No.4269 of 2025 dated 12.06.2025 is hereby quashed and set aside. The learned Additional Sessions Judge is requested to hear the said bail application afresh by considering the objections 7led by the applicant and also, after giving opportunity to either sides to make fresh and/or additional submissions, if required and if it deems 7t, at the time of hearing of the bail application. 15. It is hereby made abundantly clear that, the order p. 8 R/CR.MA/18593/2025 CAV ORDER DATED: 19/01/2026 passed by this Court to quash and set aside the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge in Criminal Misc. Application No.4269 of 2025 dated 12.06.2025, is in context with the said application to be heard afresh on its own merits and considering the objections of the applicant. By no stretch of imagination, it should be considered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge that, this Court is expecting the reversal of the decision passed by him in Criminal Misc. Application No.4269 of 2025 on 12.06.2025, unless the written objections 7led by the applicant would merit a decision otherwise. 16. Thus, in view of the aforesaid observations, the matter is hereby remanded back in view of the above terms. (UTKARSH THAKORBHAI DESAI, J) ANKIT SHAH p. 9